Health Care for Women International, 36:1–2, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0739-9332 print / 1096-4665 online DOI: 10.1080/07399332.2015.1000129
Editorial Maternal Health Practice: A Mismatch of Knowledge and Expectations In a new volume of Health Care for Women International, expect more involvement from the International Council on Women’s Health Issues (ICOWHI) Board of Directors. Anticipate “News from ICOWHI” in each issue, following my editorial. Articles in 36(1) concern maternal health. Several authors suggest a “mismatch” between what we know from evidence-based research, what practitioners provide, and what women expect. Social models of care are recommended in favor of medical models by McNeill and Reiger in their study of women in Northern Ireland and implicitly by all other authors. Kim studied traditional cultural beliefs among women in Korea about prenatal care, suggesting that in Korea and elsewhere, practitioners may discount cultural beliefs in predicting maternal outcomes. Craig and Kabylbekova reported that practitioners adopted a Western [medical] model of maternity care, assuming mothers lacked basic information in Kazakstan, a developing country. What new mothers desired and expected, however, was information that would empower them to make decisions about relationships, to build emotional support and trust. Elsewhere, researchers from University of North Carolina (Singh et al.) studied gender equality in eight African countries, operationalizing equality in terms of decision-making. They learned that women who made decisions had better outcomes for both maternal and child health. Adeoye et al. conducted an epidemiological study in Nigeria to understand factors that might predict maternal morbidity. They learned that practitioners were attempting to identify organ failure whereas most factors affecting women’s health were modifiable, relating to maternal health care access. Tarasoff, who reviewed global literature on women with physical disabilities, concluded practitioners assumed disabled women were asexual. Their patients were misunderstood and often lacked appropriate care. Teoli and colleagues worked with women in West Virginia in the U.S., learning that women’s self-ratings of health were good predictors of birth outcomes and child health. While the authors felt limitations might make
1
2
Editorial
this suggestion premature, I think it is time that practitioners resist ignoring women before deciding which interventions are appropriate. Alas, we must be cautious, however, when adopting social models of maternity care. These too, could lead us astray if used exclusively. Grigoryan and colleagues learned in their study of Armenian women that when social relationships between maternity doctors and patients are strong, patients will rate their care as good or excellent, even when maternal child outcomes are poor. It seems obvious that a collaborative model is needed mixing evidence based-research of both medical and social variables. Eleanor Krassen Covan, PhD, Editor-in-Chief December 15, 2014
Copyright of Health Care for Women International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Editorial Maternal Health Practice: A Mismatch of Knowledge and Expectations In a new volume of Health Care for Women International, expect more involvement from the International Council on Women’s Health Issues (ICOWHI) Board of Directors. Anticipate “News from ICOWHI” in each issue, following my editorial. Articles in 36(1) concern maternal health. Several authors suggest a “mismatch” between what we know from evidence-based research, what practitioners provide, and what women expect. Social models of care are recommended in favor of medical models by McNeill and Reiger in their study of women in Northern Ireland and implicitly by all other authors. Kim studied traditional cultural beliefs among women in Korea about prenatal care, suggesting that in Korea and elsewhere, practitioners may discount cultural beliefs in predicting maternal outcomes. Craig and Kabylbekova reported that practitioners adopted a Western [medical] model of maternity care, assuming mothers lacked basic information in Kazakstan, a developing country. What new mothers desired and expected, however, was information that would empower them to make decisions about relationships, to build emotional support and trust. Elsewhere, researchers from University of North Carolina (Singh et al.) studied gender equality in eight African countries, operationalizing equality in terms of decision-making. They learned that women who made decisions had better outcomes for both maternal and child health. Adeoye et al. conducted an epidemiological study in Nigeria to understand factors that might predict maternal morbidity. They learned that practitioners were attempting to identify organ failure whereas most factors affecting women’s health were modifiable, relating to maternal health care access. Tarasoff, who reviewed global literature on women with physical disabilities, concluded practitioners assumed disabled women were asexual. Their patients were misunderstood and often lacked appropriate care. Teoli and colleagues worked with women in West Virginia in the U.S., learning that women’s self-ratings of health were good predictors of birth outcomes and child health. While the authors felt limitations might make
1
2
Editorial
this suggestion premature, I think it is time that practitioners resist ignoring women before deciding which interventions are appropriate. Alas, we must be cautious, however, when adopting social models of maternity care. These too, could lead us astray if used exclusively. Grigoryan and colleagues learned in their study of Armenian women that when social relationships between maternity doctors and patients are strong, patients will rate their care as good or excellent, even when maternal child outcomes are poor. It seems obvious that a collaborative model is needed mixing evidence based-research of both medical and social variables. Eleanor Krassen Covan, PhD, Editor-in-Chief December 15, 2014
Copyright of Health Care for Women International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
